NatGasLens — US Natural Gas & Henry Hub Data

get_henry_hub_cot_positioning

Read-onlyIdempotent

Speculative positioning in Henry Hub natural gas from the weekly CFTC Commitments of Traders report (futures and options combined): managed money net position, its weekly change, its percentile against three years of history, producer net, open interest and its change, plus a plain-English read. Reports lag the market — days_stale says by how much. Full data on both scopes.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`asof`	No
`data`	No
`note`	No
`tool`	No
`scope`	No
`stale`	No
`disclaimer`	No

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only and idempotent. The description adds behavioral context: it notes the data lags the market and that `days_stale` indicates the lag. No contradictions with annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and detailed fields. Every sentence adds value: the first covers scope and data, the second notes lag and staleness. No redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With an output schema present, the description does not need to explain return format. It fully describes the data content, staleness, and scope. The mention of 'both scopes' is ambiguous but does not detract from completeness.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

There are zero parameters, and schema coverage is 100%. The description does not need to add parameter info. Baseline for no parameters is 4.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly specifies the resource (Henry Hub natural gas speculative positioning from CFTC CoT report) and enumerates the exact data fields (managed money net, weekly change, percentile, producer net, open interest, change, plain-English read). It is distinct from sibling tools that cover forward curves, LNG, storage, etc.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage context (weekly CFTC report on speculative positioning) but does not explicitly state when to use or not use, nor mention alternatives among siblings. However, the context is clear enough for an agent to infer appropriate use.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All NatGasLens — US Natural Gas & Henry Hub Data tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool addresses a distinct aspect of natural gas data: fundamental score, production nowcast, and storage nowcast. There is no functional overlap, and agents can easily differentiate them.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tools follow a consistent 'get_us_natural_gas_<specific_measure>' pattern, using snake_case and clear descriptive names. The naming is uniform and predictable.

Tool Count4/5

Three tools cover key indicators for natural gas monitoring. While the set is concise, it avoids bloat and each tool adds significant value. A slight increase might be justified, but the current count is appropriate for the focused scope.

Completeness4/5

The tools provide core supply and demand indicators (production, storage, and a composite score incorporating demand). Minor gaps like a separate demand tool exist, but the composite score partially addresses them, making the surface fairly complete for monitoring purposes.

Resources

Need Help?